| |
BGonline.org Forums
Being is not presence. My answer, before looking to your answer.
Posted By: higonefive In Response To: Same position, change roll to 65 -- Now what? (Nack Ballard)
Date: Saturday, 28 October 2017, at 6:40 p.m.
Well done, Mr. Ballard. You’re a true ZEN-Master of Backgammon. You don’t come up with an answer, but with your stick and that is a question.
Gassho.
Another ZEN-Master of your country, Graham Harman, wrote:
- Being is not presence. Being is not presence, because being is time – and time is something never simply present, but constantly torn apart in an ambiguous threefold structure. … A thing is more than its appearance, more then its usefulness, and more than its physical body. … The true being of things is actually a kind of absence. … “Withdrawal”: all things withdraw from human view into a shadowy background, even when we stare directly at them. Knowledge is less like seeing than like interpretation, since things can never be directly or completely present to us.
The being of a backgammon position is an expression of assets and liabilities (Kit Woolsey starts with this, when I remember right), forming their equity, in their end. But the realisation of this equity unfolds in time. In philosophy we are missing the ‘time’, even ‘being in time’ was not written. The Author sacrificed time for freedom. That is, why we Mr. P’s love this game of backgammon: we can blunder, we have the freedom to do so, we get often away with this through the contingency of the dicies.
It is a lot of work, to see all candidates. I found at least 9 candidates. I will continue in a narrative.
7/1 6/1. Because this position depends heavily on the difference of being and time, this can’t be right. A good board is an asset, but it is only an asset, if you will get a shot.
22/11. Bringing a man in, in building range. The ace-point blot must be considered as a target, in a shootout. So giving up the anchor isn’t really giving up the anchor. It is a presupposition.
22/17 7/1. Breaking the anchor seems to be the idea, that addresses the fragility of time, which is in my eyes the main theme in this position. Slotting a point is making a point. Coming out with a six seems to address the fact, that if this outfield blot is hit, there is a 2 for the returnshot in the outfield an ace in the infield. So overall, it must be better, to come with the six. 18/7. The barpoint can be an asset. But there is no doubleshot, if the midpoint has to go.
22/16 7/2, 22/16 6/1, 22/16 18/13 In the scum bucket, see above.
18/13 7/1 Scum bucket.
22/17 22/16. Infamous. O. K. Corral with three guns. Settling the position now in a flash. Heraklit might have this played instantly. If a six comes, there we are, fully prepared. A return on ace, perhaps. A two round gunfight, perhaps even more. This m u s t be the winner. Anything else could be a whopper.
To settle for the others is not so easy. I have almost no clue. I will look at them as a whole. 22/11 looks like a ‘balanced play’. 22/17 7/1 is better on outfield, but dumps a new target in the house. Gunfight is coming soon. 7/1 6/1 must be the worst, because: being is not presence.
So here we are. The curtain closed, some questions open. Thank you, Mr. Ballard, for your question.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.